[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402071245350.4212@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:46:19 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
penberg@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: Hold list_lock unconditionally before the call to
add_full.
On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From the lockdep annotation and the comment that existed before the
> lockdep annotations were introduced,
> mm/slub.c:add_full(s, n, page) expects to be called with n->list_lock
> held.
>
> However, there's a call path in deactivate_slab() when
>
> (new.inuse || n->nr_partial <= s->min_partial) &&
> !(new.freelist) &&
> !(kmem_cache_debug(s))
>
> which ends up calling add_full() without holding
> n->list_lock.
>
> This was discovered while onlining/offlining cpus in 3.14-rc1 due to
> the lockdep annotations added by commit
> c65c1877bd6826ce0d9713d76e30a7bed8e49f38.
>
> Fix this by unconditionally taking the lock
> irrespective of the state of kmem_cache_debug(s).
>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
No, it's not needed unless kmem_cache_debug(s) is actually set,
specifically s->flags & SLAB_STORE_USER.
You want the patch at http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=139147105027693
instead which is already in -mm and linux-next.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists